Jeremiah 9:6

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Things have Changed...Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-DarwinismThe first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibriumThe latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Explanation At LastI have noticed, in some of our posts, that DNA has been mentioned in connection with evolution, (or against it,) but hasn't been properly explained yet. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid found in the cells of all living organisms and some viruses. This Nucleic acid acts as a storage device containing the codes to life, or the amino acids to create life with. DNA is composed of strings made of sugars and phosphates wrapped around each other with 'rungs' of units called nucleotides, creating a shape known as a double helix. The double helix runs in long strands wrapped tightly around itself in a linear unit called a chromosome. There are four different types of nucleotides, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. These are grouped into two sets, Adenine and Guanine, and Cytosine and Thymine. Thes are the only possible pairs of nucleotides. So Adenine can't pair with Thymine, and Cytosine doesn't mathc up with Guanine. These pairs then are arranged in various orders determining your eye, hair, or skin color. When somthing evolves, it's a mutation in the DNA itself that causes the creature to have different characteristics. Mutations can be caused by ultraviolet light, radiation, some viruses, or by the organism itself in cellular process such as hyper mutation. I won't go into those processes now, but it is an incredibly complex subject that I will post about later. I have barely scratched the surface here, but you can already see DNA is too complex to have been created by random chance. The first cell created by random chance would have to create its own DNA and proteins, get the cellular sturcture built, and it would have to get it right the first time. If it got it wrong the cell would quickly die. If there is no creator, nobody cna see it die and say something like, "Will maybe if I build it this way it will work better." And these cells can't evolve and make themselves better because they die before the second generation can even be born. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for something to evolve, not two generations. This is all proof that life was carefully designed and created just a carefully.

Prepare to Defend Your Faith!Evolution is often thought to be beyond question, and many believe it to be a scientific fact that evolution did produce all life on earth. It might surprise you know that there are multiple scientific laws that fly in the face of macro evolution. As you defend your faith, it will be helpful to know these laws, and to explain them to the opposition. Because in order to be a viable theory, evolution should be consistent with well established laws, and as you will read in this post, it is not.

BiogenesisIn the middle ages, scientists observed that rats and flies were found in the greatest intensity around piles of decaying garbage. Given this fact, they proposed that garbage produced rats and flies! This idea was taken for a fact for hundreds of years. You may have heard of it, its called Spontaneous Generation. Eventually a man named Louis Pasteur rid science of this idiocy, and the Law of Biogenesis was formed. This law says that life only comes from life. Nowhere in known history has this law been broken, which makes sense, considering the complexity of even a single cell. With Macro Evolution, we have regressed back to the middle ages. Only what once was a pile of garbage is now a warm pond, or volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea. The problem is that even in ideal conditions, the odds of forming a single protein, (one of hundreds necessary to life), are so ridiculous, they could never happen given hundreds of trillions of years, let alone a wimpy 6 billion! There is no scientific appeal to Spontaneous Generation beyond the desire to remove God from science, and society.

The First Law of ThermodynamicsIt is a proven fact that in any isolated system, energy cannot be created, or destroyed. Imagine a marble rolling up and down the sides of a bowl. At the top of the bowl the marble possesses a certain amount of potential energy, (or potential motion). Gravity acts on the marble and causes it to roll down the side of the bowl. At this point, the marble is losing its potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy, (energy in motion). But once the ball starts rolling up the opposite side of the bowl, it starts losing its speed, (kinetic energy) and gaining potential energy for its next run. Now, you may have caught a problem with this picture. Anyone knows that a marble rolling around in a bowl will eventually stop. This, however, does not mean that energy has been lost. Instead, friction between both the marble and the bowl, and the marble and the air, has taken the marble’s energy and transformed it into heat. So, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we see that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. So, contrary to evolution, the universe could not have been created by a natural process. We know that time, and energy, and matter could not have existed forever, and we also know that natural processes, (like the big bang) cannot create these things, so we are left with one option; to recognize God as the creator of our universe.

The Second Law of ThermodynamicsAs I mentioned above, the energy in any system is never created or destroyed, but changes form. It turns out that there is a trend in the way that energy changes form. And this is addressed by our next law. The Second law of thermodynamics says that all potential energy in the universe is slowly changing into non-recoverable, heat energy. So, although we are not losing energy, the useful energy we have is changing into useless heat by processes like friction, and nuclear fusion. Think about it this way. Our petroleum deposits, (which have the potential to cause kinetic energy) are rapidly diminishing, and as we burn this fuel, our engines produce heat, and motion. Even the motion our cars produce is eventually stopped by friction, and this friction produces heat. This heat radiates into space, and is useless. This poses a huge threat to macro evolution’s timeline. Because the older the universe becomes, the more useless heat energy it accumulates, and the less useful energy, (like fuels, or motion) it has left. Our universe shows very little useless energy, and fuel, and motion everywhere. This proves that the universe had a beginning, and shows that that beginning was too recent to defeat the odds of Spontaneous Generation.

They Point to a CreatorAs I look back on this post, it becomes apparent how interconnected these laws are. If Macro Evolution were viable, it would be just as interconnected with other corresponding laws. Instead, our scientific laws show how ridiculous the hypothesis of Macro Evolution is, and they point unquestionably, to a supernatural creator.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Our Nation is in DangerPolitics is a dangerous subject that I never intended this blog to discuss. However, I feel that our nation is currently headed toward destruction, and in order to turn around, the people of America need to speak out, and take action.

Consequences of SocialismObama has been a socialist from the moment he entered the race for president. America didn’t see the danger until it was too late, and now we are stuck with the consequences of America’s choice. These consequences will include nationalized healthcare, government ownership of GM, Banks, and other large companies, Cap and Trade, and more to come. These might not sound all that bad to you, so I will explain why I call them consequences.

Nationalized HealthcareFirst, nationalized healthcare is a socialistic ideal that makes healthcare extremely inexpensive, or even free. However, since the government must pay the hospitals, the government also controls who can get help, and to what extent. This makes it hard for older people to receive special treatment, since the government will choose to help younger people who have more life ahead of them. Nationalized healthcare in Europe has resulted in overcrowded hospitals, since it costs relatively nothing to get a checkup, or get a prescription for a sore throat. So, the minor ailments often are over treated, and people who really need help wait days before they can get attention. I heard a story about a woman who got in a car accident, and waited three days in a stretcher in the halls of a hospital in London before anyone even looked at her. Nationalized healthcare costs the government billions of dollars that they don’t have, and forces citizens to pay high taxes so that other people can get treatment that they could otherwise do without.

Corporate GovernmentGovernment ownership of large companies increases the power, and role of the government, by making us dependant on their products. Now that the government controls GM, they will undoubtedly start to limit the size, carbon footprint, and power of cars that we buy. This will no doubt sound appealing to the environmentalists, but mankind only produces less than one percent of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and we are already an exceptionally clean nation. Earths water and air are cleaner now than they have been in decades. More fuel efficient cars come at the expense of comfort, and safety. And if these companies get into debt, it will be our taxes that bail them out.

Tax on Life"Cap and trade" is a bill that Obama is trying to pass gives the government control over what we can buy and sell. If this bill passes, your house will have to pass government mandated appraisals, (to make sure your house is “Green”) before you are allowed to sell it. Industries will be taxed heavily for every bit of pollution they create, and will pass this expense on to their customers. No one will be exempt from this rise in living expenses, and it is questionable whether or not future generations will be able to support themselves.

Hidden Motivation? Does Obama really think all these changes will help? His solutions to our problems only create new, worse problems. If you doubt this, don’t take my word for it, do your own research. Obama’s nation that he is creating is not a nation that will last. He is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have on quick fixes. Don’t think I am trying to be offensive, but I don’t think Obama is dumb enough to think he is helping America. If you notice, there is a trend in his bills; they all give him more power. Is Obama a power hungry lunatic? I am not accusing him, but I don’t think it is an impossibility. I think we need to be careful how much power we are giving to our president, because if we wait too long to take action, it might be too late. This is the fourth of July, and I am proud to be an American. Our nation is the most beautiful, powerful, and free nation on the face of the world and I want my kids to grow up as free as I am.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Totally Different ThingsThere are two different types of evolution, one is micro evolution, the other, macro evolution. They both rely on the fact that creatures have the ability to change. This change can hinder them, or help them become better suited for their environment. The main difference between the two types of evolution is the way that the change takes place, and the amount of change that is able to take place.

Micro EvolutionAccording to this theory, changes are caused by existing DNA being combined in different ways as a result of cross breeding. This allows plants and animals to adapt each generation to fit their environment as it changes. Of course, these changes are limited, although creatures are able to develop certain characteristics, they will never have the information in their DNA to turn into a different type of creature. The offspring of two dogs will always be a dog since there was no information contributed concerning another creature. The few, and not so common, changes that are not pre-programed into the DNA of a creature are mutations, there have never been any that have caused a gain of information.

Macro EvolutionThis hypothesis relies on beneficial mutations, which, over time change a creature into a more advanced type of creature. Although there are examples of mutations, they have never caused a increase in information, and without more complicated genes, a creature would never evolve into a more complicated animal. Instead, almost all mutations, (with the exception of frame shifts) cause a loss of information, any significant losses are almost always deadly. One of my favorite books sums up mutations perfectly. It shows a cartoon of a man, sitting back in his arm chair, chucking rocks at his TV and saying something like, “maybe this next rock will mutate this analog TV into a wide-screen, HD TV”. We all know how ridiculous this is. But if you think a TV is a delicate, complex piece of equipment, try studying the DNA for a day or so. What are the usual outcomes of mutations? Experiments done on fruit flies exposed to radiation over the course of many generations have yielded fruit flies with wrinkled wings, no wings, blind eyes, and other hindrances that would work against natural selection. Out of all the fruit flies, not one was found with a mutation that made it more fit to survive in any way, or make it classified as a different species.

My Conspiracy TheoryMany people get confused over the two different types of evolution. Evolution scientists often take advantage of people because of this. They will find an excellent example of micro evolution, and then tell you that it is the type of evolution that could over time transform a creature into a different type of creature. The truth is, It's not! Micro evolution is outward change; it never produces new DNA, it just combines DNA in different ways. Macro evolution is upward change; it depends on mutations having the ability to produce new, and better DNA. But no matter how far outward you go, you will never go up. in fact, the only vertical change that has been proven to happen is downward change, because mutations can cause a loss of information. We see this in dog breeding, we now have dogs like the poodle who are so different, they are virtually a different type of animal all together. this is not evidence for macro evolution, but rather against it, the poodle has lost information through destructive mutations throughout its genealogy that have rendered it less able to survive, (I knew there was something wrong with those animals). The funny thing is, scientists should know all this stuff. why would they then tell us that we are observing small amounts of macro evolution when they know we are only observing micro evolution? Its because they are pushing an agenda; that science can explain everything without the need of supernatural intervention. And these agendas are what make scientists overlook the problems in their theory, and make evolution into a "blind faith" oriented religion.